Should civil partnerships only be available to same sex couples?

13 May 2018 by

Following on from the UK Supreme Court’s special session in Belfast hearing the “Gay Cake” case, the Court now gathers in London to hear oral arguments in the Equal Love litigation whose factual origins are somewhat closer to Parliament Square in more ways than one.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan contend they were unlawfully refused an opportunity to register a Civil Partnership at Chelsea Town Hall on the grounds that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 reserves that status strictly for same sex couples. This exclusion started to appear somewhat anomalous when the government opened marriage up to same sex couples by way of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The effect of this is that same sex couples in England and Wales (and Scotland – but not Northern Ireland) had a choice of marriage and civil partnership but different sex couples only had the former option.

What then is to be the future of the status of Civil Partnership created in 2004 (and covering the whole of the UK)? Most countries, upon enacting, same sex marriage abolished civil partnership schemes or barred new entrants to their schemes (like the Republic of Ireland). A few countries like the Netherlands, where civil partnership regimes are open to different sex couples as well, left couples with a choice of arrangements. Uniquely England, Wales and Scotland have (at present) left in place a situation in which same sex couples can choose between Civil Partnership and marriage but different sex couples only have the latter available to them.

This Blog has covered the story of the Steinfeld from the very beginning. The original hearing was in front of Mrs Justice Andrews and the arguments were examined by Professor Rob Wintemute in these pages. Ultimately, as reported by Adam Wagner, Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that the current law does not breach the human rights of opposite-sex couples who cannot obtain a Civil Partnership.

A challenge to this ruling failed in the Court of Appeal who considered that the bar constitutes a potential violation of the appellants’ human rights under article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) when read with article 8 (right to respect for private and family life.) However, the majority held that the prohibition formed part of the Secretary of State’s policy of “wait and evaluate.” In the context of a pending Private Members Bill on the issue, the Court refrained from making a declaration of incompatibility with the appellants’ rights under the ECHR.

Tim Loughton MP has made a series of attempts to change the law. The latest iteration of this effort is the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill (HC Bill 11). After discussion with the government, this calls for the preparation of a report assessing how the law ought to be changed to bring about equality between same-sex couples and other couples in terms of their future ability or otherwise to form civil partnerships. With the government preoccupied by the problems of bringing about Brexit, it is unclear how quickly this will be undertaken.

The Courts have been busy in the meantime also. In Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Ors (Rev 2) [2017] EWCA Civ 1916, as analysed in this blog, the Court of Appeal ruled that cohabiting couples should have a right to claim bereavement damages, putting them in a position analogous to spouses and civil partners. The European Court of Human Rights also handed down Judgment in Ratzenböck and Seydl v Austria in late 2017 – the implications of which for Steinfeld were analysed in a significant article on this site by Professor Helen Fenwick and Dr Andy Hayward. The arguments were also considered in depth by scholars from all over the world in a book edited by Dr Andy Hayward and Jens M. Scherpe, The Future of Registered Partnerships, family recognition beyond marriage? which contains a particularly powerful article by Professor Norrie from Strathclyde University setting out the potential problems of opening up civil partnership to different sex couples.

In the week before oral arguments are to begin in the Supreme Court, the Equalities Minster released a paper, The Future Operation of Civil Partnership: Gathering Further Information which argued that the Government needs to undertake research on four matters before arriving at a decision as to the future of civil partnerships:

  • Trends in civil partnership and marriage amongst same-sex couples (it was able cite the fact that only 890 civil partnerships were registered in 2016 in England and Wales albeit this was an increase of 3.4% in civil partnership formation in 2016 compared to 2015;
  • Survey to assess demand for civil partnership and marriage amongst opposite-sex couples in the UK;
  • Research into the motivations of same-sex couples who choose civil partnership; and
  • Review of what has happened in other countries.

This generated lurid headlines in The Sunday Times, Tories may scrap civil partnerships . This seems somewhat hyperbolic. In reality, the government is most likely to study whether there is any real demand for the opening up of civil partnerships to opposite sex couples or whether, in the alternative, civil partnerships should be closed to new entrants as was done in the Republic of Ireland after they enacted same sex marriage after their historic referendum.




  1. The difference is that what is Natural, all which naturally occurs, does not require any Man Made Law, since what is Natural Conforms to what is called the Natural Law. There is Only One Natural Law. This Law is Never changing. This Law Never requires any updating. Because it is the Law embedded in the Conscious of Human Beings.
    Man and Woman are the Natural ‘components’ required to bring forth off-spring hence no Man Made Law is for marriage for Male & Female.
    That which is Un-natural, requires Man Made Law.
    With due respect to all who participate of the Un-natural Man Made Law, all Human Beings are different. Some are evolved and some are not. Hence, a baby does not fully know what is good to eat and will put any toy in its mouth. Once the baby evolves and grows older, this child will not put mud nor a stone in their mouth.
    The same applies to Human Beings who will at some stage in their lives wake up.
    Irrespective, Love all, respect all, each to his own as long as there is Harmony with the Natural Law and does not try to impose restrictions on those who observe the Natural Law.
    However, non compliance to the Natural Law does cause disharmony, not just directly with the respective couples but also rather the community spreading further…
    For the good of Humanity, the One Natural Law must be upheld.
    Peace & Love to all. The Truth must be upheld.

  2. peakcrew says:

    Why should it matter how many people might take advantage of civil partnerships regardless of hetero/homogeneity? If civil partnership exists on the statute books, it should be available to all. Why is this so difficult for the government to grasp?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: